"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to have commons-cactus-22-$VERSION.jar and
> commons-cactus-23-$VERSION.jar to be downloadable as well? I'm
> envisioning that ultimately people are going to start building Ant scripts
> with targets that go grab just the required JAR files off a server
> (ultimately this would be done in a "CJAN" style), without having to
> unpack anything.
I was going to propose something like this soon, once I did a bit of
homework. I was going to call it "Pottery Barn" or "Bag of Jars" or
"Kiln" or something.
The idea is to do a lightweight CJAN of sorts - make it so we can make
'Fire and Forget' build scripts where we can specify a set of default
jar names and Ant can just go and get them if it can't find the ones it
needs in the <shudder> classpath or an external resource properties file
or something. But we would avoid each component/project checking in the
jars that it needs.
Is anyone interested?
It would help me square my belief that we should 'virtually' include all
jars / dependencies in a build so a user has it easy with the valid
objections of Sam Ruby and other regarding the static version binding
that this sets up along with and the misfortune of hapless people like
Craig who are forced to work over <giggle> analog modems sometimes :)
I would imagine that we would have a managed repository of the jakarta
jars of all versions, and other resources, such as JUnit. Eventually,
if this worked well, we would decentralize and ask the Jakarta projects
themselves to host their own versions.
I will follow this up with a more formal propoal, or just start screwing
around in the sandbox.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
